The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1887-12-15
TALKS ON THE TARIFF.
Hon. W. II. Calkins Gives His Views of the
Presidents Free-Trade Message.

RreSl0enL freS-1Fauc M6SSdSes
Hon. w. b. Calk:ns, ex-member OF Congress,
talks with the readers Of the Journal to-day
upon the subject of the Presidents message and
the tariff His views will be of interest, for
they represent what may be regarded as the
most liberal school of Republicanism this
question. The interview with Mr.. Calkins was
as follows:
What do you think of the Presidents mes
sagea"
$50 far as the message relates to the surplus
revenue and the duty of Congress to provide
some means whereby it may be reduced, men of
al political parties. think will agree with him
that it is the duty of Congress to forthwith stop
this needless accumulation in the Treasury.
Yet how to do it and not bring disaster upon
the country is the vital question"
"Do you consider the Presidents message an
able and non-partisan appeal to Coneressg"
mo; do not. It is true the President
says that the question should be approached
in a spirit higher than partisanship and
considered in the light of patriotic duty
No intelligent man will be deceived by
these words after reading the message. AS an
example of the craftsmanship which the President
displays, / cite the fact that the wool-growers in
the country are largely Republican. This Is
Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin. 1t is fair to
say that the President knows this. the 1900
Louisiana sugar plan ters are largely Democratic.
Both sugar and wool are articles OF necessity.
Wooden clothes are used in this and the higher
ATTITUDES by all the people, while sugar in some
form finds place at everyb ody's board in the
land On the question of wool the President
devotes nearly one-half column in his message
to show that the tariff duties upon it are wrong
and that all foreign wool should be admitted
duty free. Not one word does the President say
in relation to sugar or the l. 800 Democrats in
Louisiana who are now protected by the existing
tariff law. The is too obvious to admit
of comment. In 1888 he cannot hope to gain
any strength from the wool-growers, while, on
the other hand, by not attacking the sugar in
terests the solid South may be maintained I'M
broken
What do you think Of the Presidents argu-
menc on the wool question:
Il am only surprised that the President should
resort TO SO weak an argument to bolster up his
message His first point is that more than one
half of the farmers of the country do not raise
sheep Therefore they should be against
tariff on wool. This is an appeal to selfshness.
the worst of all appeals If this selfish appeal
is to be listened to IL will destroy all tariff laws,
framed for revenue and incidental protection.
The idea of our tariff is to diversity the prod
ucts of the farm and the industries Of the coun-
try. For instance il the tile manufacturer can
not live without tariff which incidentally pro-
tects his tiles, it would not be a very strong
cause be did not make glass The tile manu-
facturer. in order to bnild up his industry, is
favorable to a tariff on tiles. and this creates
sentiment in favor of like law for other maui
featured products, while the people at large are
interested in having industries of the kind built
M among them. whereby an equilibrium to some
between
consumer. If all the people of the country were
engaged in agricultural pursuits, the surplus
which they raised would be of little value
But while a home market is made for what Is
produced the farmland this is the best
market in the world-the manufacturer who
produces the tile is enabled to give work to the
skilled artisan. well as to the common aborers,
who in turn buy the farm product and build up
a home industry. which makes US as q people in
dependent of foreign tile manufacturers.
selfish argument Is always a weak one.
", fy,fn FhA prncT Tv%h f1
sage, attempts to show that the benefit which
the farmer receives by a tariff wool is wiped
out by the enhanced price which he is finally
compelled to pay for the manufactured article.
This is what might be called old saw This
argument has often been answered that the
wonder to me Is that the President should ven
ture to revamp it. 1t is easily overthrown, and
/ may resort to one of the simplest forms to
show its fallacy. II the President had weighed
his coat vest and trousers he would have ascer-
tanned approximately how much wool there
IN these very necessary articles OF apparel His
coat would have weighed about three pounds
and his vest and trousers about two pounds
making in all five pounds. In these garments
there is about two and half pounds of raw
WOOL which makes % cents that he pays to the
farmer for the purpose of wearing clothes made
out OF wool grown American soil. If the
President buys four suits year he pays ST. to
the American farmer on his four suits of
clothes.
'Of course, this is prsdicated upon the theory
that the present President of the United States
wears homemade manufactured goods, which,
in vIaw Of his wool argument, is extremely
doubtful One of these suits of clothes which
l have described at the present price of wool,
calculated at twenty-four cents a pound, repre-
sents about sixty cents in raw wool AS the
wool is the principal factor in this suit it is
fair to estimate the residue of the raw material
at the same value, making a total of 81 20. The
balance of the cost of this suit is represented
entirely by the labor that is put upon it. If
the Presidents suit of clothes costs $50, S58 so
of it is labor and ST. 20 of it raw material Whom
does the President strike now in his wool areu-
ment2 Is it not the various laborers who toll
and sew and stitch the Presidents apparel
instead of the manufacturer the wool grower2
Let We commence with the man who
shears the sheep and pass to the
who washes the wool. picks it. asserts it,
cards it, spins it. weaves 1t, finishes it, rolls it
into merchantable CLOTH transports it to the
merchant. cuts il and fashions it to the limbs of
the wearer, sews it even 70 the last button hole;
and we find that the President is quarreling,
not much with the man ufacrurer or the wool
grower for the price that he has to pay for his
suit of clothes as he is with the persons who, by
their labor, have made his suit. Thus find
that the of the Presidents suit of clothes is
90 per cent. labor and per cent. raw material
If we maintain the present price paid for labor,
the Presidents suit would cost him $50 minus
the tariff duties. say so cents. which equals
$50 80. Any material reduction in the price of
the Presidents suit of clothes eould only be
made by a reduction in the price paid to labor.
Is this what the President wants2 If it is let
the laboring men Of the country answer him.
From what you say. then, infer that you
are for a protective tariff"
II will answer that by saying started out a
free-trader. l was Taught in the schools that
the doctrine Buy where you can buy the cheap
and sell where you can get the highest
price was a true principle in economies To
this principle adhered until long years OF study
and the logic of practical experience taught me
my error. l could not shut my eyes to the fact
that under Incidental protective tariff law
during the last twenty-five years this country
has prospered and increased in wealth to such
q degree that it had not only become marvellous
to ourselves, but the wonder OF the world. And
the strangesr part of it was that during that
I'D Id obn1I In. ioh inn